🔗 Share this article

After government officers detained the university student a student activist in his campus housing, the institute director understood a significant fight was coming.

Jaffer leads a university-connected institute focused on defending free speech rights. The student, a permanent resident, had been involved in pro-Palestinian encampments on campus. Months earlier, the institute had hosted a symposium about constitutional protections for noncitizens.

"We felt a direct link with this situation, since we're part of the university," Jaffer stated. "And we saw this arrest as a major violation of constitutional freedoms."

Landmark Victory Against Administration

Last week, the institute's lawyers at the free speech organization, along with legal partners their co-counsel, secured a significant legal win when a federal judge in Massachusetts determined that the detention and attempted deportation of Khalil and other pro-Palestinian students was illegal and purposely created to suppress protest.

Government officials announced it will appeal the verdict, with White House spokesperson Liz Huston describing the ruling an "unacceptable decision that hampers the safety and security of our nation".

Growing Divide Between Institute and University

This decision elevated the visibility of the Knight Institute, catapulting it to the frontlines of the battle with Trump over core constitutional principles. However the victory also highlighted the growing divide between the institute and the university that hosts it.

The case – described by the presiding official as "perhaps the most important ever fall within the jurisdiction of this district court" – was the first of multiple challenging Trump's unusual attack on universities to go to trial.

Court Testimony

Throughout the two-week trial, academic experts gave evidence about the atmosphere of fear and self-censorship caused by the arrests, while immigration officials revealed details about their reliance on dossiers by rightwing, pro-Israel organizations to select individuals.

A legal expert, chief lawyer of the American Association of University Professors, which brought the case together with local branches and the Middle East Studies Association, described it "the central civil rights case of the Trump administration this time around".

'University and Institute Are On Different Sides'

While the legal success was hailed by advocates and scholars nationwide, Jaffer heard nothing from Columbia following the ruling – an indication of the disagreements in the positions staked out by the organization and the institution.

Prior to the administration began, Columbia had represented the declining tolerance for Palestinian advocacy on US campuses after it summoned officers to clear its student encampment, disciplined multiple activists for their protests and severely limited protests on campus.

University Settlement

Recently, the institution negotiated an agreement with the federal government to pay millions to settle antisemitism claims and submit to significant limitations on its independence in a move broadly criticized as "surrender" to the president's bullying tactics.

Columbia's submissive approach was starkly at odds with the Knight Institute's defiant one.

"This is a time in which the university and the organization hold opposing views of some of these critical questions," noted a former fellow at the free speech center.

Institute's Mission

This organization was established in 2016 and is housed on the Columbia campus. It has obtained significant funding from the institution as part of an arrangement that had each contributing substantial amounts in program support and long-term financing to establish the center.

"Our vision for the institute in the years ahead is that when there is that moment when the government has overstepped boundaries and fundamental rights are threatened and few others is prepared to step forward and to declare, this must stop, it will be the this organization that will taken action," stated the former president, a First Amendment scholar who helped create the institute.

Public Criticism

Following recent events, the university and the Knight Institute were positioned on opposing sides, with Knight regularly criticizing the institution's management of pro-Palestinian protests both in private communications and in increasingly unforgiving official comments.

In one letter to university leadership, the director criticized the action to suspend campus organizations, which the institution said had broken rules related to organizing protests.

Growing Conflict

Later, Jaffer again condemned the institution's choice to call law enforcement onto campus to clear a non-violent, pro-Palestinian encampment – leading to the arrest of numerous activists.

"The university's decisions have become disconnected from the values that are central to the academic community and mission – including expression, academic freedom, and equality," he wrote this time.

Activist Viewpoint

The detained student, in particular, had pleaded with campus officials for protection, and in a published article composed while jailed he wrote that "the logic employed by the administration to single out me and my peers is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression playbook concerning Palestine".

The university reached agreement with the federal government shortly after the case wrapped in court.

Organization's Reaction

Following the deal was announced, the Knight Institute published a strong criticism, concluding that the agreement approves "a remarkable shift of independence and authority to the administration".

"Columbia's leaders should not have agreed to this," the statement stated.

Wider Impact

Knight has allies – groups such as the ACLU, the free speech organization and other rights organizations have challenged the government over free speech issues, as have labor organizations and Harvard University.

Nor is it exclusively focusing on campus issues – in other challenges to the government, the organization has filed cases on behalf of agricultural workers and environmental advocates challenging government agencies over climate-related datasets and fought the suppression of official reports.

Unique Position

But its defense of campus expression at a university now synonymous with compromising on it puts it in a uniquely uneasy position.

Jaffer showed understanding for the absence of "good options" for Columbia's leaders while he characterized their decision to settle as a "major error". But he stressed that although the organization standing at the other side of its host when it comes to addressing the administration, the university has allowed it to operate without interference.

"Especially right now, I appreciate this independence as automatic," he said. "If Columbia tried to restrict our work, I wouldn't remain at Columbia any more."